Talk:Belarusian Home Defence

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on Byelorussian Home Defence. Please take a moment to review my edit. You may add after the link to keep me from modifying it, if I keep adding bad data, but formatting bugs should be reported instead. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether, but should be used as a last resort. I made the following changes:
 * Attempted to fix sourcing for http://autary.iig.pl/mironowicz_e/knihi07-26.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 23:30, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

Bias
This article constantly uses the pejorative term collaborator, suggests that the main role of the BHD was killing jews, and generally shows extreme bias. The reality was far more complex, and the role of the formation significant in the war against the Soviet Union.Royalcourtier (talk) 06:03, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Byelorussian Home Defence. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140714144611/http://mizna.ru/docs/2/1212/conv_1/file1.pdf to http://mizna.ru/docs/2/1212/conv_1/file1.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 03:07, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

Requested move 14 March 2018

 * The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section. 

The result of the move request was: no consensus. Further discussion at this or other pages for a consensus title can take place either in a new RM or outside the RM process if a more informal discussion could help achieve consistency. TonyBallioni (talk) 21:17, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

Byelorussian Home Defence → Belorussian Home Defence – In the text, the names are written without the "y". Numerous sources don't have the "y". The official website (http://www.belarus.by/en/about-belarus link) doesn't even have the y. Its spelled "belarus" and the adjective is with an A. Source is https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/belarusian oxford dictionary. Artix Kreiger (talk) 20:17, 14 March 2018 (UTC)


 * Thanks for bringing it here. 1). Partisan Warfare 1941–45 by Nigel Thomas & Peter Abbott, Bloomsbury 2010, pages 16 and 31, ISBN 0850455138; says: "Byelorussian Home Guard (BKA)" also in Kindle by Amazon (look inside). 2). Wilson, Andrew (2011). Belarus: The Last European Dictatorship. Yale University Press. pp. 109, 110, 113. ISBN 0300134355; says: "Belarusian Home-Defence (BKA)." On the other hand, "Belorussian Home Defense" can be found in Poland's Holocaust by Tadeusz Piotrowski, pp. ix, 150, 153 etc. It's a judgement call.  Poeticbent  talk 21:47, 14 March 2018 (UTC)


 * The current title matches other "parent" articles such as Byelorussia in World War II and the Byelorussian SSR and most sub-topics such as the Flag of the Byelorussian SSR. I think the idea is that "Byelorussian" is the spelling used by the UN (of which the BSSR was a member from 1945–1991).  Consistency is probably good here and so all of theses titles should be addressed if there is a problem.  —  AjaxSmack  01:36, 15 March 2018 (UTC)
 * well, Im just conflicted honestly. It appears both spellings are correct. I'm in favour of consistency to at least 1 of the spellings. Artix Kreiger (talk) 02:55, 15 March 2018 (UTC)
 * I could support either "Byelo-" or "Belo-" but applied consistently from 1920–1991. ("Byelo-" is official but "Belo-" is a little more common.)  I oppose "Bela-" as anachronistic. —  AjaxSmack  00:29, 16 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose, for the reasons cited by Artix Kreiger and AjaxSmack.—Brigade Piron (talk) 07:58, 16 March 2018 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Reinstated the rank insignia
Excessive information is not applicable. Rank insignia is a significant and accepted part of all articles about uniformed organizations on Wikipedia. There is even a special link to this and other sites:

Creuzbourg (talk) 13:01, 27 August 2020 (UTC)
 * This is a reference to three of my edits which you rolled back with no edit summary some of which have no relevance to the rank insignia section. For the record, I would add that went canvassing after these edits at Skjoldbro on the basis that s/he "might not have time fight an edit war. Or I might need backup if an edit war starts." It is not a promising start.
 * The inclusion of rank insignia as "a significant and accepted part of all articles about uniformed organization" is meaningless and probably untrue. We are dealing with this article, not any other. The inclusion of this article in a navigation template is also irrelevant.
 * My removal of the table of rank insignia was based on WP:INDISCRIMINATE which provides that "merely being true, or even verifiable, does not automatically make something suitable for inclusion in the encyclopedia". At the moment, more than half the article is taken up by the intricate table of rank insignia (to General, no less!) which is of minimal significance to understanding the history of the Byelorussian Home Defence or German-occupied Byelorussia which is what this article is about. I do see the rationale for an article like Military ranks of Belarus but the military formation in question here lasted less than a year. To cap it off, the information is not even based on a WP:RS.
 * In order to generate some discussion, I have raised this on WP:MILHIST for comments. —Brigade Piron (talk) 13:48, 27 August 2020 (UTC)
 * In order to reinstate the rank insignia I unfortunately had to remove three of your edits. I did not hesitate to do that, since its hard to assume good faith on your part as you removed a large part of the article without discussing it on the talk page first. I agree that the rank insignia forms a large part of this article - as it now stands. Yet, this is a Start-class article and will hopefully be expanded into a size where the rank insignia part will be seen as not intruding on other space. Furthermore, as said above, rank insignia of uniformed organizations has always been an accepted part of Wikipedia articles.
 * I welcome input from WP: MILHIST. I will avoid further arguments, as I already said my bit, and let consensus decide. I will not start any edit wars. Creuzbourg (talk) 13:57, 27 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Given that the rank markers are systematic, representative examples could cover every possibility in about 5 illustrations for ossifers, rather than about 15. Qwirkle (talk) 16:32, 28 August 2020 (UTC)


 * Remove per WP:INDISCRIMINATE. --K.e.coffman (talk) 03:28, 31 August 2020 (UTC)